Justice Antonin Scalia: Constitution allows religion to be favored over secularism

choke on chicken bone?

I routinely pray for a fatal three-car pile-up in the SCOTUS parking lot.

I laughed out loud on that.

And drive off a cliff.

Scalia is an insane asshole. He really needs to be removed from the bench.

He's like every Underdog villain combined.





and so on...

An originalist when it suits him.

by Judge Richard Posner. The title of the review kinda gives away Posner's thoughts: The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia. He burns Scalia to the waterline, philosophically speaking, and dynamites the wreckage just for good measure. Posner thinks Scalia is a phony and an intellectual fraud and makes no bones about it whatsoever.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/magazine/books-and-arts/106441/scalia-garner-reading-the-law-textual-originalism

ever read or heard one of his opinions.

"conservative intellectual" as if there was such a thing.

Thanks!

Let's see what Justice Breyer and others say about his 'absurd.' (I hope it doesn't come to that.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022991846

convinced there is no "probable cause" clause on the 4th Amendment. And anyone who thinks otherwise is not in the position to voice an opinion.

you claim to adhere to so faithfully justifies this, you lying asshat? Can't be true without a citation.

Judge Posner was and is right: Fat Tony is an unprincipled liar.

his only principle is delivering results oriented, highly partisan, opinions.

The Vatican, of course. Oh, the Five will appear to be in favor of the beliefs of say, Southern Baptists. But only to the point somewhere down the road where their beliefs diverge.

restricting abortion rights, then why does she oppose Roe v Wade now?

Her position, as I understand it, is that Roe was correctly decided but for the wrong reasons.

She says it went "too far too fast" and that if it could be done over and she had a vote she thinks "life of the mother" should have been the only thing protected at the federal level and the rest should be left up to the states.

Must have misremembered her words. Apologies.

You can read it for yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade_n_3261187.html

No quartering without consent.

And we can all thank god at his funeral.

And a more horrifying picture of Scalia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/02/antonin-scalia-religion-government_n_5922944.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I've always despised this man, but the depths he has sunk to are a direct threat to freedom in America. He is completely unable to see through the eyes of a secularist. All of whom are terrified because of the power he yields.

secularists as non-Americans.

Actually, that time was quite a few years ago, but it's still time to impeach him.

Scalia should be impeached, but the GOP has too many seats in congress for that to happen.

He does not understand the most basic concept of our Constitution & our government, that is, the government has no powers except the powers granted to it by the people & by laws.

There is no passage in the Constitution, & there is no law passed by Congress & signed by a President, which grants the government the power to favor religion over non-religion, or to favor one religion over another. That power has never been granted "by the people" to the government.

Scalia apparently takes an opposite & utterly erroneous view, that the government inherenty has all power, & thus can do whatever it wants, unless it is specifically prohibited by the Constitution or law.

That is an incredibly basic, & frankly stunning, misunderstanding of how our government is supposed to work. Any high school student that's taken a civics class should know that.

This man is clearly not qualified for the position he holds & should be removed.

I could not have summarized the core principles of our Constitutional system of governance any better.

When one of the nine most powerful arbiters of the Constitution is in such willful denial, we are in a lot of trouble as a nation.

Scalia is unfit to serve on the Court (as are Thomas & Alito, at the very least).

-app

As that is the complete opposite position "conservatives" (of today) promote.

Might I suggest skydiving, lion taming or chainsaw juggling. These are all worthwhile pursuits.

...that doesn't make use of the Failbook API, of course.

I suppose is just as good.

Round one: Scalia vs. Thomas.

More appropriately, this prick should recuse himself from them because he DOESN'T!!!

His whole premise is absurd. He's an strict constuctionist and an orginalist. The constituion says NOWHERE that religion is to be favored, so a strict constructionist, BY DEFINITION, has to believe religion cannot be favored.

And as an "originalist" (a intellectually bankrupt position if there ever was one), he should know that some of the framers were "thinking" that since they were deists or agnostics, they would have not "wanted" religion to be favored.

He's contradicting himself, but that's nothing new for a dunce like him.

and Judge Richard Posner have blown the philosophy of "originalism" to atoms and shown it for the complete fraud it is. Strauss' book is "The Living Constitution" and I link Posner's article above. No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty can deny the bald-faced fraudulence of "originalism" after reading those essays.

It doesn't even make sense, because it requires a strict interpretive stance, but then you have to interpret it based upon what you think someone else was thinking 200+ years ago.

So, you don't interpret, but you have to interpret in order to not interpret the Constitution.

That's why i think Scalia is an idiot.

he's dangerous in every way

It's not wise to have religious extremists on the Supreme Court. This is why voting for Democrats is essential.

Then we can be all religisity.

Heh! Scalia is voting a privilege or a right?
Is my preference of being non-religious a crime in the christian view?
What do you think of the United Church of Christ?
Do you think you should recuse yourself along with your buddies when you go to right wing donor events lets say in Aspen or San Diego?
I think you should be IMPEACHED in my opinion, you and your four buddies legislate from the bench.
How about what you said in your confirmation hearing, the Congress has the only power to make law, the court is to uphold, or deny it--end of story, apparently not you

What a lying blowhard. His rantings will be laughed at over the next centuries.

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]

Many, many more can be found at http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_JMadison.htm

"Where in the constitution is separation of church and state?"

She actually said this. Those words came out of her mouth. At Widener Law School.

My favorite part is when the students and professors begin laughing, she turns and beams at them, thinking she's scored a major debate point.

In other words, she's either too stupid and/or deluded to even recognize that they are laughing at her, not with her.

That woman is about as sharp as a bag of wet mice.

I'm not trying to let her off the hook. Just saying maybe better coaches would have done the smarter thing by keeping her completely out of the public eye.

Really, he is a POS forever to me. Can't be shocked anymore by what that dumbass says.

if he ever "had" it at all. At least some of us have always wondered about that.

One would think that a Supreme could be dismissed for going gaga, as Scalia apparently has.

Having individuals as Scalia presiding on the highest court in the land is, IMO, a much greater and much more immediate threat to the United States of America than ISIS is or EVER will be.

If he really loved the law and the US Constitution, he would resign. But scum such as he never will.

Washington Times reported, but he said the U.S. system was not set up to promote secular values."

He realizes many European nations have state religions, right?

he commits legal/judicial malpractice.

not only to the supreme court but to mankind in general. America has lived in his world view over a hundred years ago and we have evolved, it's sooo sad that he hasn't. And that he is allowed to drag us back which is a detriment to us all.

The US government under the Constitution "cannot favor religion over non-religion."

By "religion" is he referring to the Catholic Church? Christianity as opposed to Buddhism or Santoria? What religion is he talking about. Because the Founding Fathers had very different religions. Some Anglicans. Some Congregationalists. A few Baptists, etc. Very few Catholics, by the way.

Scalia's view is impossible to enforce. It is impossible for a court, for example, to decide whether a "religion" that is a self-proclaimed religion, is a "religion" in terms of the Constitution.

Would Scalia limit the term "religion" to refer to the religions common in the US at the time of the Constitution? Catholics would not be in the front of the line, may I remind him.

I thought that American courts tried to stay away from the task of defining religion or resolving theological questions because they are not equipped, educated or trained to deal with religious issues.

What in the world is Scalia talking about. Madison was to a great extent responsible for writing the First Amendment provision regarding religion. On what history is Scalia basing his claim?

That the constitution allows to appoint Scotus Justices as Supreme Dictators. It says so right there!

But is only when it suits him. For those one or two of you asking "What is original intent", Original intent, AKA "originalism", is a school of Constitutional interpretation that insists it should only be interpreted as the originalists suspect the original writers had in mind. There are a number of problems with originalism, starting with the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution disagreed with other framers. Another problem is determining the intent of the framers. But the major problem was expressed by Thomas Jefferson

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

In other words, what makes the intent of the framers so sacrosanct?

Anyway, in the case of Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), Angel Raich was growing marijuana for her own medicinal use -- which was legal under California law. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held this to be illegal under Federal law. A concurring opinion was written by Scalia, who based the decision ultimately under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause, saying

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As <US v Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995)> itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could ... undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.

Interestingly enough, Justice O'Connor based her dissent on exactly the same case Scalia based his concurrance, Lopez. She said that Lopez placed limits on Federal use of the Interstate Commerce clause and Raich's use of marijuana came under those limits.

Clarence Thomas, of all people, said that the majority was wrong, saying that Raich grew and used

Marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power.

Thomas wrote: "The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power". He went on to say "Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power," and concluded: "Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments".

The gist of Thomas' dissent comes straight out of original intent:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States". Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

I believe that here, Thomas is quite right, and Scalia only really supports "original intent" when he agrees with it.

from a hypocritical asshole who famously said that recusal rules do not apply to SCOTUS when asked if he should recuse himself from a case where he had obviously had a conflict of interest.

History is not Scalia's friend for history paints a far different picture than what Scalia attempts to paint.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

or just taken to the home

why isn't he stepping down and running for the tea party. what an embarrassment.

a majority of 5 out of 9 can decide whatever they want.